Content uploaded by Ronaldo André Rodrigues da Silva
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ronaldo André Rodrigues da Silva on Feb 11, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Patrimonio Industrial.
·º�
BSIL
Abstràct
Section 3
817
Portuguese-speaking Industrial Museums: An Analysis between
Brazil and Portugal
Ronaldo André Rodrigues
PUC Minas/Brasil, TICCIH-Brasil e APPI/TICCIH-Portugal – ronaldoandre@gmai.com
José Manuel Lopes Cordeiro
CICS/UMinho/Portugal e APPI/TICCIH-Portugal – jmlopes.cordeiro@gmail.com
Section 3 – Industrial Heritage and Management
ABSTRACT
The examples of Portuguese-speaking museums of industrial heritage can be considered
in great diversity since the field itself has an interdisciplinary perspective. However,
existing initiatives in Brazil and Portugal have characteristics which, in many cases,
approximate realities and at the same time distance them. Due to the geographic
differences and even due to an industrial past and present, it is observed a
characterization proper to each of the countries. However, the forms of treatment and
development of museological initiatives have as focus the preservation of the memory
and the history of the industrial heritage. The recognition and appropriation of the
different examples of industrial heritage are treated with singularities and convergences.
They range from the valorization and conservation of sites, equipment and elements of
the industrial memory to their separation from an industrial origin. Thereby, this work
seeks to present the current situation of museums in Brazil and Portugal according to a
quantitative and classificatory analysis of the different types of museums and the various
possibilities of musealization of the industrial heritage, from an appropriation by public
and private agencies to the possibility of participation and community use. There is also
the possibility of the increase of the diversification of industrial museums and the
valorization of the industrial past, either through collections and exhibitions, as well as in
the realization of temporary activities. The multiplicity of actions allows a greater
exposure of the relations between company and community, as well as guarantees an
institutional and social recognition. In this way, it is intended a greater visibility to the
initiatives of preservation of the industrial memory, as well as the presentation of the
different and possible looks to the industrial heritage. Their understanding and knowledge
allows one to understand and perceive industrial museums not only a relation to the past,
but also to understand their importance for the present and the future according to the
memory and history of places, institutions and of their different components.
1. PRELIMINATORY CONSIDERATIONS
The propositions built for the definition of concepts about museology have been
providing an amplification of its comprehension, understanding and enlargement. The
museological experiences have been comprising since the traditional museum concept
to the most diverse innovations. They arise since the experience of Scandinavian
countries to the concepts of ecomuseums, in which one searches an amplification of the
relationship with cultural and socio-environmental life, to conservation and preservation
of the immaterial patrimony and revitalization of a large patrimony.
The ideas related to the industrial elements from a patrimonial view and as
evidences of a culture did not appear until the end of the eighteen century, whether they
would be for mechanical objects, industrial plans, documents, etc. As a reference, one
can take the creation, in 1784, of the Arts et Métiers Conservatory, as the world’s first
technical museum. Until then, the industrial buildings (and their surroundings) were not
object of patrimonial interest until the middle of the twentieth century.
Therefore, in this perspective of amplification of different typology of museum
which include industrial ones arrives as a possibility of amplification of educational
proposals for the patrimony, tourist and museological actions, mainly on the 50s and 60s,
traditionally in Anglo-Saxon countries.
From the perspective of expanding the concept of cultural heritage, industrial
objects should not be perceived from a relationship restricted to the existence of a
technical and architectural patrimony. It involves principles of protection, reuse, museum,
etc., as well as elements of fine art and its need for conservation and preservation. With
a view to museological institutionalization, one must analyze aspects such as the
orientation, planning and organization of industrial memory, as well as the need for
different professionals (architects, historians, conservators, museologists, trip scientists,
technical professionals - chemists, physicists, engineers - among others), as well as
public (preservation, patrimony and culture organs) and private (companies and
associations and business foundations) managers, and other bodies (museums, centers
of culture and memory, etc.) and professionals and individuals.
For the conservation and restoration fields, it should be noted that the different
factors that characterize the possibilities of heritage valorization allow a wide range of
considerations that fit from artistic-cultural aspects to instrumentation, technology and
industrial equipment. The valuation of objects/goods/artifacts is done from a double
perception in which one has an interpretation according to its historical, artistic and
cultural values; as well as anthropological and sociological values in which both are
permeated by symbolic exchanges inherent in identity and identificatory relationships
between individuals, institutions and society.
From this interpretation, one can equally infer in a need of the most diverse
professionals when it comes to examples of industrial patrimony: ones who are
demanded for their directly related qualification to factors of technological development
and techniques applied to functionality; and ones who have as areas of knowledge those
related to cultural and heritage aesthetics, and tourism, museum, conservation and
restoration professionals linked to the aspects of their preservation. There are also other
demanded professionals who are linked to the revitalization of industrial areas or
industrial landscapes whose area of knowledge is related to aspects of memory and
socioeconomic history (for example, historians, sociologists), as well as elements of
personal and social identity (anthropologists, archaeologists) from the links between
man-work and business-society.
2. THE BRAZILIAN MUSEOLOGY OF INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE
In what is referred to as museological institutions stablished in Brazil, one has,
from the official register of IBRAM – Instituto Brasileiro de Museus (Brazilian Museum
Institute), a state federal agency, a group of 3,606 museological unities. Among them,
only about 5.0% of institutions objectively have a direct relationship with the custody,
preservation and conservation of industrial archeology and industrial heritage elements.
(Table 1)
Region
Number of
museums
Perc. (%)
Museus
P.I. – P.F.
Total Perc. (%)
Perc. (%)
I.H. – R.H.
North
171
4,70%
8
0.22%
4.37%
Northeast
762
20,93%
32
0.88%
17.49%
Southeast
1.439
39,52%
92
2.53%
50.27%
South
998
27,41%
39
1.07%
21.31%
Central-West
271
7,44%
12
0.33%
6.56%
BRAZIL
3.606
100,00%
183
5.03%
100.00%
Table 1: Quantitative Analysis of Museums
Source: Instituto Brasileiro de Museus – IBRAM, dec/2015.
http://sistemas.museus.gov.br/cnm/pesquisa/filtrarUf
Legend:
I.H.: Museological Institutions of Industrial Heritage
R.H.: Museological Institutions of Railway Heritage
It is observed, as well as the social and economic conditions of the country, a high
concentration of museums in the two main economic and populational regions of Brazil,
Southeast and South, with about 72% of museological institutions.
In addition to the geographical concentration of institutions, it should be noted that
the industrial museums, in its entirely, make up for less than 5% of the total number of
museums - 181 (one hundred and eighty-one) of the existing 3,606 museums; which
correspond to an exact 4.97% of the number of museums registered in the federal official
body. For industrial museums, including museums dedicated to railway heritage, 23
(twenty-three) of them are closed or in the process of implantation. (Table 2)
Region
Open
Closed
In
Implantation
Total Per
Region
North
4
4
0
8
Northeast
29
2
1
32
Southeast
78
6
3
87
South
37
4
1
42
Central-West
10
2
0
12
BRAZIL
158
18
5
181
Table 2: Situation of Usage
Source: Instituto Brasileiro de Museus – IBRAM, dec/2015.
http://sistemas.museus.gov.br/cnm/pesquisa/filtrarUf
The concentration of museums, as presented above, should be noted once again
in the Southeast region, but highlighted the fact that half of the museums in the northern
region, less favored by museum entities, are closed, according to the information
presented by the state national body. (IBRAM, 2015)
When dealing with management questions, it is observed that, in relation to
museological entities, the museums managed by private initiative generally have a
classification that presents 59 (fifty-nine) units of the 181 (one hundred and eighty-one)
entities identified as industrial heritage. Another question of interest concerns the
museological entities administered by the municipal public administration, with 38.12%
of the total number of organizations. (Table 3).
Region
Federal
State
Municipal
Private
Other
Not
Identified
Total Per
Region
North
3
2
2
1
0
0
8
Northeast
3
4
7
14
3
1
32
Southeast
9
3
38
26
4
7
87
South
4
4
18
13
1
2
42
Central-West
2
1
4
5
0
0
12
BRAZIL
21
14
69
59
8
10
181
Table 3: Types of Management
Source: Instituto Brasileiro de Museus – IBRAM, dec/2015.
http://sistemas.museus.gov.br/cnm/pesquisa/filtrarUf
Among the total of the entities managed by the federal public administration, those
related to the railway assets stand out with about 71%, that is, 49 (forty-nine) of the 69
(sixty-nine). This situation is largely due to the position of privatization of the Brazilian
railway heritage that went through a moment of paralysis during 80s and 90s. With the
definition of the assets and the transfer of the railway organs to the municipal public
entities, a process of revaluation of the heritage is developed with its restoration,
conservation and reutilization focused mainly on issues related to culture and specifically
to the railway memory and history of Brazil.
For the other management models, there is a balance between federal and state
public entities, with approximately 21 (twenty-one) federal, 14 (fourteen) state units, and,
for the remaining, 18 (eighteen) units managed by other models, amongst them entities
of the third sector added to those without identification of the management model.
(IBRAM, 2015)
In Brazil, the valorization of the industrial heritage for tourist and museological
purposes has occurred in an embryonic and pulverized way, whose promotion occurs
through a set of actions that reveal the organization of entities and institutions that aim
at its development. As examples, one can have networks or routes of museums related
to the industrial heritage presented in the book “Centros e Museus de Ciência do Brasil”
(Brazilian Centers and Science Museums), published by the ABCMC – Associação
Brasileira de Centros e Museus de Ciência (Brazilian Association of Science Centers and
Museums), as well as the examples of the House of Science (UFRJ’s Cultural Center of
Science and Technology) and the Museum of Life (Casa de Oswaldo Cruz/Fiocruz).
Besides these, one can have the Museum of Industry, Commerce and Technology
of São Paulo and the network of Museums of Energy of the State of São Paulo. Other
minor initiatives, but not less important, are the Museu do Pão (Ilópolis/RS), the Décio
Mascarenhas Textile Museum (Caetanópolis/MG), the Marmelos Zero Mill Museum (Juiz
de Fora/MG), as well as all those related to the railway sector. It can be added the cases
that compose the set of patrimonial elements presented by the Group of Studies of
Technique History of University of Campinas - SP (GEHT/UNICAMP, 1998) are
complemented.
However, initiatives that value individual or group objects, specific typologies and
other forms of representation such as aqueducts, hydroelectric plants, tea and matte
profit houses, dams, mills, factories, railway facilities and complexes, mines, quarries,
power plants, wineries; besides the social complexes (workers' villages and socio-
communal equipment) that comes from the installation and development of industrial-
economic activities.
The private and business initiatives could be considered according to the growing
number of companies that have developed foundations and memory centers to develop
activities related to the promotion and rescue of industrial past and history, among them:
the Bunge Memory Center, the Bosch Memory Center, the Klabin Memory Center, the
FIEMG (Federation of Industries of the State of Minas Gerais) Memory Center, the
ArcelorMittal Brazil Foundation (Sabará) Memory Center, Monlevade do Ferro e Aço
Museum (João Monlevade/MG), Morro Velho Memory Center (Nova Lima/MG), among
others.
It should also be considered that such centers must have expanded their concept
when considering those related to public, private non-industrial institutions, and other
human activities related to economic and social development.
Examples of successful management of museological institutions related to
industrial patrimony include the Energy Museums Network of the State of São Paulo and
the Arts and Crafts Museum, in Belo Horizonte, with the management of private entities;
and the Arroio dos Ratos Coal Museum, in the State of Rio Grande do Sul and the Tram
and Train Museums, respectively under state and federal public administration. Consider
also the only exemplary of museum dedicated to industrial archeology, in Mairiporã, São
Paulo, the Museum of Industrial Archeology and Technology. (Image 1)
Image 2 – Arts and Crafts Museum (Brazil)
Source: Ronaldo André Rodrigues, 2014.
In this way, there are several examples of recovery of industrial and cultural history
that present the possibility of knowledge of a time lived and of its environment.
Organizational transformations in companies have been little considered in explaining
the social changes and the expectations and limitations of contemporary society. Social
and human factors must be evaluated, such as the reflexes in the living and working
conditions of the people, the demands of qualification required by the productive
processes, the community and infrastructure issues and the possibilities of action with
the "collective worker" and the society.
3. INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE MUSEOLOGY IN PORTUGAL
As far as industrial museums in Portugal are concerned, there is no systematic
inventory that can present the current reality in this area. The realization of studies with
the objective of knowing the museological reality of the country is unfortunately not a
regular practice of the institutions that have responsibilities in the sector, be for the case
of industrial museums, or museums of any other kind. The studies carried out are very
scarce and only recently have started to be realized. In this scope, it is highlighted the
Inquérito aos Museus em Portugal (Portugal Museum Inquiry) (published in 2000), an
extremely important work organized by the former Portuguese Musem Institute and
coordinated by Raquel Henriques da Silva, which, for the first time in Portugal, allowed
the definition of museological policy coherent by the entity responsible for the
museological sector. Later, it was published two more studies, O panorama museológico
em Portugal (The museological panorama in Portugal) [2000-2003], coordinated by
Maria de Lourdes Lima dos Santos, e O panorama museológico em Portugal: os museus
e rede portuguesa de museus na primeira década do século XXI (The museological
panorama in Portugal: the museums and the Portuguese museums network in the first
decade of the twentieth century), of José Soares Neves, Jorge Alves dos Santos e Maria
João Lima, the latter the most recent one, being edited by the General Direction of
Cultural Heritage in 2013.
It is not therefore easy to obtain a strict, exhaustive knowledge of the actual
panorama of industrial museology in Portugal. In spite of the existing difficulties, through
a variety of sources, it was possible to obtain a framework that one can believe to be very
close to this reality, taking into account the different guardianships, i.e. municipalities,
private companies, foundations, companies, universities and regional administration
(autonomous regions), since the central administration has always resigned its
responsibilities in this area.
Image 1 – Woolen Museum of Covilhã (Portugal)
Source: Danilo Pavone, https://images.turismoenportugal.org/.
Distributing the inventoried museums in the five regions that one can consider the
most appropriate for this exercise to better translate this reality, and also by the
autonomous regions, the obtained result can be observed in the following table 4.
Region
Municipal
Private
Foundations
Companies
Universities
Regional
Admin
Total
North
8
2
1
1
12
Center
6
2
4
1
13
Greater
Lisbon
and South
Margin
6
1
3
10
Alentejo
4
1
2
7
Algarve
1
1
2
Madeira
1
1
Açores
1
4
5
Total
23
4
5
11
1
4
50
Table 4: Types of Management
Source: Self elaboration, 2018.
According to Inquérito aos Museus, of INE – Instituto Nacional de Estatística
(National Institute of Statistics), in 2016 (last year with available values) there were 32
museums in Portugal in the category of "Museums of Science and Technology", which
includes industrial museums, in a total of 405 museums in Portugal, which means a
percentage of 7.9%. With the obtained results of 50 museums in this category - probably
explained by the fact that, in the research, the result was obtained considering a personal
knowledge of the sector and not, as in the case of INE, based on questionnaires sent to
museums, since it is known that they do not always respond or do so in an incomplete
way - the percentage of industrial museums rises to 12.34%, a value that one can believe
it is not far out of line with the existing reality.
4. PORTUGUESE-BRAZILIAN GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The low representativeness of museums related to the archaeology and industrial
heritage in Brazil emphasizes a low participation and involvement of different elements
of society and reveal and synthesize the need to seek a museum policy of valorization
and identity that has, as its principle, the formation of concepts related to the preservation
and conservation of industrial heritage, based on the interrelation of identity and cultural
and social identification of individuals and groups, of organizations and their
surroundings.
The museological character applied to industrial patrimony allows the construction
of social memories and histories in which the importance and relevance of organizational
history, and its influences on social, cultural, political and economic life, are perceived.
An adequate "organizational synthesis", pluralistic and complex from the point of view
that allows a differentiated perception of how organizational histories can be described
and perpetuated in the perspective of museology.
However, it is observed that the formal system of official institutions dedicated to
cultural heritage and museology do not directly consider a policy of management and
protection of the industrial heritage. Generally, it is included or cited as part of the cultural
heritage, be it identified as historical, technological, architectural heritage, or as
communitarian and social infrastructure.
This perception of the industrial patrimony is reflected in the education policies for
the patrimony and in the formal formation of the diverse professionals who work in the
areas of patrimony and museology. It can be said that formal education presents, for the
teaching institutions in History, Architecture, Arts and Museology, among others,
questions related to the study of industrial heritage, either through specific topics related
to it or through personal and professional concerns of the researchers and professors
that work with some aspect of the industrial heritage.
Thus, when evaluating the various forms of expression of industrial heritage and
its relation to tourism and museology, one should consider a group of instruments that
ensures the expansion of its applicability - whether private or collective actions, private
or state initiative - and that allows to glimpse the aggregation of the vision of culture,
memory and history to a heritage based on science and technology (Bruno, 1997).
When integrating issues related to industrial heritage and the need for its
conservation and preservation, consideration should be given to the construction of
museum-based social facilities that develop works related to instruments or lines of
action that allow the development of activities aimed at the continuity of the memory of
the work, the worker, the technique and the technology (Bergeron, 2002).
An adaptation to the criteria proposed by Filipe (2003) constitutes a set of priority
lines for the development of these initiatives: the building of a group of actions that allows
the construction of virtual exhibition lines on industrial history; the development of studies
and performances in the media for the interpretation and information of the museum
proposals; the development of studies on populations and social groups and their
relations with industrial history; the proposal of studies and actions focused on
interdisciplinarity, integration, museums and tourism; the development of studies and
actions on the structural exchange and the diffusion of industrial culture; and the proposal
of studies and actions on the development of skills and knowledge related to museology
and industrial heritage (Murta and Albano, 2002).
These propositions define a multidisciplinary analysis of the patrimony whose
understanding involves not only different but complementary areas of knowledge, as they
require the participation of different social groups, directly and indirectly involved in the
valuation and preservation of the patrimony. Their understanding from the vision and
perception of social actors involves coordinated, cooperative and integrated action. Thus,
the construction, development and consolidation of a long-term process of a tourist and
museological mentality, related to the industrial patrimony and to the cultural patrimony
as a whole, are allowed. The construction of management and planning policies allows
a greater capacity of integration of the parties involved and an effective interdisciplinarity
regarding the processes demanded for its execution.
Such factors become important from the museological point of view when
considered according to the current social requirements, which determine implications
and considerations regarding current propositions of both functional and formal
characters. The first relates to aspects of rigor and competence with regard to the content
involved and the second relates to the languages, expressions and relations with the
cultural and social requirements that are imposed on it.
In addition to relating to the educational and recreational function, the new
requirements of museology encompass the need to integrate the socioeconomic
development of the communities to an interrelationship of identity and cultural and social
identification with the groups of their environment. The participation and involvement of
society lead to results that synthesize the importance of working together with
collectivities for the formation of concepts of preservation and conservation of patrimony,
in addition to building such awareness according to a proposal of heritage education and
identity between individuals and the place where they live.
The construction of the concept of patrimonial education has origins in the
movements referenced to the Heritage Education in England of the 70s. In Brazil, it was
introduced, according to Grunberg, Horta & Monteiro (1999), in the following decade and
was constituted in a way to promote the patrimonial action in places of museological
tradition, such as parks and historical places and museums. At the end of the twentieth
century, actions and initiatives for the development of heritage education multiplied,
although punctual and temporal, and has extended to social and cultural contexts with
the purpose of developing a greater identity and has also been presented as a character
factor of promotion to citizenship.
The heritage education, for Teixeira (2006), can be considered as a learning
practice through pedagogical actions of a specific knowledge and related to memory and
history. In addition, it can be interpreted from different perspectives and in an
interdisciplinary way, from education as a training of the individual and the citizen, to the
formation of questions of social, political and economic characters. It is described, mainly,
by relating the private (individual) and the public (citizen) when treated individually, and
the private (groups of coexistence) and public (community) when it refers to society. A
perception of social influences, of relationships established between organization,
society and government, and the importance or influence of it in the social and cultural
processes of a society are themes if not unexplored, in some cases at least incipient or
embryonic.
These characteristics of quasi-absence or rarity of heritage education theme in
Brazilian primary and secondary schools reflect an "underdeveloped" culture of
dissemination, inclusion and development of "patrimonial citizenship" among Brazilian
children, adolescents and youngs (Noelli, 2004). There is a need for a broader education
that favors the inclusion of disciplines with a global and humanistic content in formal
education that, in a way, restrict the formation of a broader awareness of the elements
of conservation and preservation not only of a cultural heritage, but also of a memory
and an identity.
With this, a possibility of expanding the concept of heritage through educational
heritage and the insertion of “musealization” in the formation of the citizen seeks to
involve issues related to education, understood as a broad learning process, not only
formal, but also through cultural, social and professional formation. Among the proposals
used to understanding and development of learning processes and the inclusion of
heritage education is the recreational training. It represents a capacity for integration and
construction of knowledge through the various forms of acting together with individuals.
In a first instance, patrimonial education must seek in individuals an identification with
the object - material or immaterial, architectural or artistic, physical or spiritual. Thus, it is
built a capacity for interaction and involvement that allows a broadening of horizons in
relation to the proposed object and theme.
From this idea, to present the fields of archaeology and industrial heritage as
opportunities and possibilities for the development of museum- and heritage-based
education allows an amplification of the concept of heritage through an action in which
one seeks to observe the elements of identity between the individuals and the city,
between the population and its cultural representations. The various forms of
manifestation of this culture, in turn, may be linked, in their origin, to some entity - physical
or spiritual, individually or collectively - representative of a society.
The application of the field of museology and the consequent heritage education
are amplified when they involve, in this system, the figure of the productive organization
that in its historical process of development integrates the social activities besides the
economical ones among its activities. In this way, from actions with the community one
can seek to build possibilities for understanding how the processes of identification,
identity and appropriation of cultural activities and actions carried out jointly by
organizations [companies] and by the community are developed. From the rescue of
these actions or the fruits of a corporate social participation, it is obtained a memory of
the place and it is built a patrimonial identity.
Regarding the panorama of Portuguese museums, it was noted a very positive
transformation from the year 2000 with the creation of the Portuguese Museums
Network, one of the results of the previous accomplishments of the Inquérito aos Museus
em Portugal. Currently integrating 149 museums, the Portuguese Museums Network is
an essential instrument in the implementation of national museological policy and in the
qualification of Portuguese museums and represents the most important initiative created
by the Portuguese State in the field of museology since the military coup of April 25, 1974
that institutionalized the democratic regime. Unfortunately, in recent years the Ministry of
Culture has not given it the support it initially counted on, which translates into a
considerable decrease in its activity of supervising the national museum sector.
In addition to the difficulties encountered by the Portuguese Museums Network,
there are other problems - which have never been solved - that interfere with the situation
of industrial museology in Portugal. The first concerns the geographical distribution of
national museums, and the second regards the need to fill several thematic gaps.
Regarding the geographic distribution of national museums, the situation has
changed slightly in recent years, although this alteration has not represented anything
substantial in the national museological panorama. By 2015, there were eleven museums
in the "national museum" category in Portugal, nine of which were in Lisbon (78.8%) and
only two "in the province", one in Porto (11.1%) and another in Coimbra (11.1%),
representing only 22.2% of the national total. In 2015 the Government decided to
reclassify two museums of the State, assigning them the category of "national museum":
this was the case of the Grão Vasco Museum in Viseu and the Museum of Music in
Lisbon. The capital then disposed of ten "national museums", reinforcing its
"museological centralism" and accentuating even more the imbalance with the rest of the
country.
The reclassification of these two museums as "national museums" constituted
therefore an unprecedented initiative, since this had not been the case since 1965, that
is, fifty-one years ago. It was with the regulation of 1965 that it was established which
museums would become national and those that would remain with the designation of
regional. Thence, only then was the concept of national, regional and municipal
museums created as they are known today.
In 2017, two more museums were reclassified as "national museums": the Évora
Museum and the Monographic Museum of Coimbra. Apparently, this new measure
mitigated the "museological macrocephaly" of the capital, providing a better distribution
of "national museums" in the national whole. In fact, this is not the case, because outside
Lisbon there are only 33.3% of the "national museums", as these are scattered, and there
is no other city that has at least two museums of national character, unlike the capital,
which has ten.
In addition to the need for more "national museums" in other cities and regions of
the country, Portugal also presents another weakness which may be associated with this
type of museum (but not necessarily) resulted from the fact that there are several areas
that do not have specific museological institutions. If we look at the concept of a "national
museum", as it was recently presented by Luís Raposo, the current president of the
International Council of Museums – ICOM, this question presents itself with great
urgency. Thus, they constitute "institutions with reference collections and national
territorial scope, cumulatively fulfilling one of the following requirements: (a) dealing with
long-established scientific fields and producers of museum collections (...); (b) dealing
with artistic domains or areas of social life that contemporary society understands should
privilege (...); (c) dealing with unique collections (Coches) or domains especially
characteristic of Portuguese culture (Azulejo)".
Thusly, it is easy to see that there is a need to fill several thematic gaps in the
structure that integrates the museums of the State, namely in "long established scientific
domains" and "areas of social life that contemporary society considers privileged". This
is an example of the "Portuguese Maritime Expansion/Discoveries" area, although the
Municipality of Lisbon recently announced the creation - in the capital - of a museum with
these characteristics; or the area "of the production and marketing of Port wine", a unique
product of the Douro region that has historically taken on a crucial importance, although
recently Porto's Municipal Chamber has declared the reopening of the completely
renewed Port Wine Museum, founded a little over a decade ago and has always fought
with great difficulties, until it was closed. However, one can stress that, in addition to
these museums whose need has often been mentioned, it is also important to fill the gap
in the absence of a National Industry Museum.
It should be considered, in a general way, that the obtaining of a Portuguese-
Brazilian national behavior in which there is a broad concern with the industrial heritage
and its possibilities of representation requires a process of heritage education and
citizenship. It includes from ludic activities of insertion of the individuals according to the
development of actions with the school community in the first years of formal education
in which a process of involvement of the [school] students and instructors [teachers] is
constituted; to a broader process of citizenship and participation of different social
groups, through a process of recognition of patrimony, its protection, conservation and
preservation from which it is intended to build a greater capacity of perception and
identification of society with the industrial organization which surpasses the first financial-
economic role and transcends the social and cultural formation of the community through
museum institutions.
Lastly, it should be pointed out that this perspective of the development of
musealization processes and its practices must be perceived in a transdisciplinary
perspective to allow the complementarity and interchangeability of specific fields of
knowledge and professionals. The numerous possibilities of articulating culture and
memory, history and society, according to the recent past and the present, define new
boundaries and articulations. The identification of a language of its own, whose identity
and memory are often signified by the world of work, bring new questions to be debated.
5. REFERECES
BERGERON, Louis. El Patrimonio industrial, ¿Qué hacer? In ÁLVAREZ ARECES,
Miguel Ángel. (coord.) Patrimonio industrial: Lugares de la memoria: proyectos de
reutilización en industrias culturales, turismo y museos. 1ª. ed. Gijón: INCUNA, p.11-16,
2002.
BRASIL. Instituto Brasileiro de Museus. IBRAM. Guia da 15ª Semana de Museus.
Histórias controversas: dizer o indizível em museus. Brasília: MinC, 2017.
BRASIL. Instituto Brasileiro de Museus. IBRAM. Cadastro Nacional de Museus. [Em
linha]. 2015. [consultado em 23 Abril 2017]. Disponível na World Wide Web:
<http://sistemas.museus.gov.br/cnm/pesquisa/filtrarUf>.
BRASIL. Instituto Brasileiro de Museus. IBRAM. Rede Nacional de Identificação de
Museus. Mapa dos Museus. [Em linha]. 2015. [consultado em 23 Abril 2017]. Disponível
na World Wide Web: <http://renim.museus.gov.br/>.
BRUNO, Maria Cristina Oliveira. Museologia e museus: princípios, problemas e
métodos. Cadernos de Sociomuseologia, vol. 10, nº 10, 1997.
FILIPE, Graça. Patrimonio industrial, experiencias museológicas y proyectos de
intervención en el territorio. In ÁLVAREZ ARECES, Miguel Ángel (coord.). Estructuras e
paisajes industriales: proyectos socioculturales y turismo industrial. Gijón: INCUNA, p.
79-88, 2003.
GRUNBERG, Evelina; HORTA, Maria de Lourdes Parreiras; MONTEIRO, Adriane
Queiroz. Guia básico de educação patrimonial. Brasília: IPHAN; Museu Imperial, 1999.
INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTATÍSTICA, Estatísticas da Cultura 2016. Lisboa: I.N.E.,
2017.
MURTA, Stela Maris e ALBANO, Celina. Interpretar o patrimônio: um exercício do olhar.
1ª. ed. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG. 2002.
NEVES, José Soares, Jorge Alves dos Santos, e Maria João Lima, O panorama
museológico em Portugal: os museus e rede portuguesa de museus na primeira década
do século XXI. Lisboa: Direcção-Geral do Património Cultural, 2013.
NOELLI, Francisco Silva. Educação patrimonial: relatos e experiências (resenha).
Educação & Sociedade, v. 25, n. 89, p. 1413-1414, 2004.
RAPOSO, Luís, “Descentralização, património cultural e museus: pensar primeiro, fazer
depois”, Público, 24 de Fevereiro de 2017.
SANTOS, Maria de Lourdes Lima dos (Coord.), O panorama museológico em Portugal
[2000-2003]. [Lisboa]: Observatório das Actividades Culturais: Instituto Português de
Museus, 2005.
SILVA, Raquel Henriques da (Org.), Inquérito aos museus em Portugal. Lisboa: Instituto
Português de Museus, 2000.
TEIXEIRA, Simonne. Educación patrimonial: alfabetización cultural para la ciudadanía.
Estudios Pedagógicos (Valdivia). vol. 32, nº 2, p. 133-145. [Em linha]. 2006. [consultado
em 24 Maio 2014]. Disponível na World Wide Web:
<http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=s0718-07052006000200008&script=sci_arttext>.
UN IVERSI DAD
CENTRAL
Se agradece el apoyo de:
• o •
V :::
J 1•
TICCIH% •�
CMNI u L
MONUMENTOS
�;" 'SANTIAGO
0mae
's �
■·MN
dibam
fus
HN
5:r
ELE ·
o
GOETHE
HR�
l
MEMORIA
HUMANOS
